/m/politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

As lassus correctly pointed out above, this is your obligation not mine.

Lassus is wrong; you're the one arguing that a general principle that doesn't have any stated exceptions actually has unwritten ones.

The regulations govern the relationship between insurer and insured. The corporation is not an insured, so it doesn't get to intervene.

That is, of course, completely and utterly wrong. The regulations govern the relationship between the employer and employee. It's an employer mandate . The penalty for noncompliance is on the employer. Insurance companies aren't even necessary parties to these requirements -- companies can be self-insured.

The employer decides what benefits to offer

No.

Yes. Again, yes, there are requirements imposed by HHS, but the validity of those requirements is what is being challenged. But either way -- that is, even if the contraceptive mandate is upheld -- an employee has no say in the matter. If an employer chooses to offer noncompliant health insurance, the employer pays a penalty to the government -- but the employee can't object. (I mean, he can exercise his freedom of speech, but he has no legal recourse. Other than, of course, changing employers.)

I think any Christian group that actively seeks converts can be said to be evangelical.

I might be mistaken, but I think 'actively seeks converts' is a hallmark of all Christian denominations, isn't it?

I have a vague recollection that from a long ago comparative religions class that Christianity (in all forms), Islam, and Buddhism all have active proselytism pillars of their faith... with the exception of the Eastern Orthodox strain of Christianity, which I believe has actually complained about Rome's fervor for it. I think Judaism and Hinduism - again - just from recollection from a long ago course, were the largest religions that didn't really incorporate the idea into the practice of faith.

Couldn't the state also argue that it has a compelling interest in providing birth control? Which is why it must be included in order for a given plan be valid in the eyes of ACA?

Of course the state could argue that -- and it might win on those grounds.¹ But that's an entirely separate factor from whether it violates HL's religious beliefs, which so many people want to argue. In other words, it is entirely consistent with the RFRA for a court to find, "Yes, it is a burden on the plaintiff's religious beliefs to require X. Nevertheless, the government has a compelling interest in requiring X, so no exemption for you." So many opponents of Hobby Lobby want to conflate those two issues and say, "The government has a compelling interest in requiring X, so therefore X must not actually violate their religion at all."

¹ I don't believe it should, for three reasons.

(1) First, a compelling interest in providing certain forms of birth control²? Seriously?
(2) Second, there are numerous exceptions that the government has written into the regulation already; the government is going to have a hard time arguing that it has a compelling interest in forcing employers to do something that it permits so many of them not to do.
(3) Third, there's yet another factor that must also be satisfied, which is "least restrictive means." In other words, if there's a simpler way to accomplish the same goal that doesn't involve a mandate on employers, then the government can't impose the mandate on employers. It's not enough for the government to say that it has a compelling interest in people having "access" to certain forms of birth control; it has to show that there isn't another good way to achieve that -- such as the government providing it directly.

²: By "providing," what you actually mean here is "requiring employers to provide."

(3) Third, there's yet another factor that must also be satisfied, which is "least restrictive means." In other words, if there's a simpler way to accomplish the same goal that doesn't involve a mandate on employers, then the government can't impose the mandate on employers. It's not enough for the government to say that it has a compelling interest in people having "access" to certain forms of birth control; it has to show that there isn't another good way to achieve that -- such as the government providing it directly.

Yes, I'm sure the Hobby Lobby and their ideological allies (such as yourself) would be lining up behind that.

This logic extends backwards to any organization of more than 1 person. It just makes no sense to single out "corporation" here.

Corporations can be singled out for many things because legally a corporation is a separate and distinct entity from it's owners/shareholders/members in a way that other conglomerations of people are not.

The regulations govern the relationship between the employer and employee.

The regulation at issue compels insurance companies to offer contraceptive coverage as a standard part of any qualifying policy. That's a regulation which affects the rights of the insured vis-a-vis the insurer. A separate law, which HL doesn't challenge AFAIK, obligates HL to offer health insurance to its employees, which is the only relevant law affecting the relationship of employer/employee, and is independent of the terms of the policy.

If an employer chooses to offer noncompliant health insurance, the employer pays a penalty to the government -- but the employee can't object.

The employer can't "choose to offer non-compliant health insurance" because no such policy exists. The employer would have to remove coverage from all employees. But in any case, it's silly to argue that someone might violate the law. Of course they might.

There is no contraceptive mandate with regards to Hobby Lobby. The mandate applies only to insurance plans.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Are you simply pedantically arguing that HL is being required to provide coverage for contraception rather than contraception directly? If so, true, but that requirement is colloquially known as the "contraceptive mandate."

(3) Third, there's yet another factor that must also be satisfied, which is "least restrictive means." In other words, if there's a simpler way to accomplish the same goal that doesn't involve a mandate on employers, then the government can't impose the mandate on employers. It's not enough for the government to say that it has a compelling interest in people having "access" to certain forms of birth control; it has to show that there isn't another good way to achieve that -- such as the government providing it directly.

Yes, I'm sure the Hobby Lobby and their ideological allies (such as yourself) would be lining up behind that.

Whether I support it as a policy matter is irrelevant to the legal issue.

Well, duh, but the hostility of Republicans to more direct means of providing such forms of contraception is highly relevant to the feeling on the part of the ACA supporters that it was necessary to provide this sort of coverage in the ACA. You and Hobby Lobby may say "If you want this product, pay for it out of your own pocket", but you can see both by the law and by the pushback here that this position isn't exactly a unanimous sentiment.

OTOH as I said before, the only opinion that really matters at this point is that of Justice Kennedy. The rest of us are more or less just howling at the moon, sobering a thought as that may be.

The regulation at issue compels insurance companies to offer contraceptive coverage as a standard part of any qualifying policy.

The regulation at issue not only does not compel insurance companies to offer contraceptive coverage, but doesn't apply to insurance companies at all. It applies to employers. (As I noted, you don't even seem to realize that some employers are self-insured, and satisfy the requirement without the involvement of any insurance company.) If Hobby Lobby's employees are not provided with contraceptive coverage, then Hobby Lobby, not an insurance company, pays the penalty.

What penalty Hobby Lobby is required to pay depends on what coverage Hobby Lobby provides. If it drops health coverage entirely, it pays $2,000 per employee (after the first thirty), or about $25 million annually. If it provides health coverage that doesn't meet the federal government's requirements, it pays daily penalties which add up to about $475 million annually. The insurance company doesn't have to pay these penalties -- just Hobby Lobby.

The employer can't "choose to offer non-compliant health insurance" because no such policy exists.

Of course such a policy exists. And if it didn't, Hobby Lobby could sponsor the coverage directly. The point wasn't that HL might fail to comply with the law; the point was that such noncompliance -- unlike, say, an overtime violation -- is between the employer and the government, not between an employee and an insurance company.

Anyway, feel free to insult my intelligence with specious arguments like that for the next few hours; I'm off to celebrate freedom from slavery like Obamacare. Let my people go uninsured.

you don't even seem to realize that some employers are self-insured, and satisfy the requirement without the involvement of any insurance company.

I understand this perfectly well, but the whole discussion here has been about employers buying policies, not self-insuring. I don't think this distinction gets you anywhere, though -- if HL wants to pretend to be an insurance company, it has to abide by the rules for one.

The regulation at issue not only does not compel insurance companies to offer contraceptive coverage, but doesn't apply to insurance companies at all.

There are 2 separate and distinct provisions of law here:

1. The ACA requires certain employers to provide ACA-compliant coverage or face penalties. This law regulates the relationship between employer and employee.

2. A regulation requires insurance companies to include contraception among their coverages. This regulates the relationship between insured and insurer.

But I didn't say that Hobby Lobby was a church, and Hobby Lobby isn't asking for 501(c)(3) status, which is the only relevance of the test you laid out. I said that just as a corporation which is a church has religious purposes, a corporation such as Hobby Lobby has (in part) religious purposes.

Taking a step back: no, you didn't say that Hobby Lobby was a church. Here's what you said:

You're right; this isn't that hard: churches are corporations. Either a corporation is a legal fiction that cannot have religious beliefs, or it isn't. Of course, a church is a corporation formed so that its members can exercise their religious beliefs -- but so is Hobby Lobby.

The law holds churches to be distinct from other types of corporations. This is reflected in both their treatment in Supreme Court cases (as you document, where laws targeting religious organizations are subject to strict scrutiny), and in the tax code. You can't claim that jurisprudence applicable to churches (understood as separate entities when the constitution was founded) applies equally to all corporations. It's ludicrous on its face.

I kinda think HL should be able to apply for an exemption. But I think the exemption should be that they cannot offer health plans at all. Possibly they could satisfy the Feds by giving each employee a Heath insurance voucher.

I kinda think HL should be able to apply for an exemption. But I think the exemption should be that they cannot offer health plans at all. Possibly they could satisfy the Feds by giving each employee a Heath insurance voucher.

I wonder if HL winning their case means a further acceleration of the decoupling of health benefits from employment. Seems to be the trend we're moving in, and its a good trend.

I wonder if HL winning their case means a further acceleration of the decoupling of health benefits from employment. Seems to be the trend we're moving in, and its a good trend.

It would be a good trend. We just need to find some other mechanism for pooling risk. The advantage of employer health plans is that employees of a company are generally not selected for healthiness or sickliness; they're a nice random sample.

No thanks. I've heard enough about the joys of socialized medicine from my Italian relatives, and Irish friends.

And you can be sure that, just like MLB picked the absolute worst replay system to emulate, the US system would copy the absolute worst available model, and implement it with all the inefficiency and corruption of Medicaid.

Hobby Lobby's fee-fees would be a lot more believable if the company's 401(k) holdings (or fine - the employee's 401(k) assets, but paid for with company contributions and ultimately managed/contracted by Hobby Lobby) didn't include more than $73,000,000 in assets invested in companies that produce everything from IUDs, to Plan B and Plan B generics, etc:

These companies include Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, which makes Plan B and ParaGard, a copper IUD, and Actavis, which makes a generic version of Plan B and distributes Ella. Other stock holdings in the mutual funds selected by Hobby Lobby include Pfizer, the maker of Cytotec and Prostin E2, which are used to induce abortions; Bayer, which manufactures the hormonal IUDs Skyla and Mirena; AstraZeneca, which has an Indian subsidiary that manufactures Prostodin, Cerviprime, and Partocin, three drugs commonly used in abortions; and Forest Laboratories, which makes Cervidil, a drug used to induce abortions. Several funds in the Hobby Lobby retirement plan also invested in Aetna and Humana, two health insurance companies that cover surgical abortions, abortion drugs, and emergency contraception in many of the health care policies they sell.

Perhaps Hobby Lobby's Director of Morality can explain why allowing insurance plans to provide coverage for drugs and procedures that they also invest in is a bridge too far...

Hobby Lobby's fee-fees would be a lot more believable if the company's 401(k) holdings (or fine - the employee's 401(k) assets, but paid for with company contributions and ultimately managed/contracted by Hobby Lobby) didn't include more than $73,000,000 in assets invested in companies that produce everything from IUDs, to Plan B and Plan B generics, etc:

Perhaps Hobby Lobby's Director of Morality can explain why allowing insurance plans to provide coverage for drugs and procedures that they also invest in is a bridge too far...

Ummmm, 401(k) investment decisions are completely controlled by the employees. The money belongs to the employees.

Ummmm, 401(k) investment decisions are completely controlled by the employees. The money belongs to the employees.

Incorrect --

The fact that Mother Jones got this information from DOL filings means that HL's plan is most certainly not a self-directed/solo 401(k).

Rather, HL contracted with a provider -- Fidelity, Vanguard, Merrill, Schwab, whomever -- and HL still has a great deal of fiduciary responsibility/control over the plan. HL via a benefits committee, CFO, etc works with the provider to draw up plan parameters and the menu of investment options. In fact, without looking it up -- I'm fairly certain that the company has a fiduciary responsibility to (annually, I think) review the plan offerings. The company contracts with the provider to draw up the list of investment options -- bond funds, money market funds, small/mid/large cap funds, international funds, index funds, etc.

Whether the money "belongs" to the employees would depend on a variety of factors -- vesting rules, etc all outlined in the plan.... But the investment decisions are not controlled exclusively by the employees. The employees are able to direct investments according to the menu of available options that the company has worked out with the provider.

Plenty of funds exist that follow various rules of social/moral consciousness -- my 401(k) has an ecologically-friendly fund available that where the fund only invests in companies that meet certain environmentally conscious criteria, for example. My company contracts with Fidelity for our 401(k) -- but by no means do I have every potential Fidelity fund or investment option available for me under our plan... I have the options that our compensation committee/finance has worked out with Fidelity to offer.

If HL was so morally moved -- they could readily work with their provider and offer only funds that invest in manners fit for their brand of morality.

#1105 There was of course one other option. Now I believe your point is that in both France and England there was a very strong anti-war sentiment (and that what happened in Czechoslovakia after Munich went a long way to change it) and that Chamberlain was acting as the vast majority of his constituents wished him to.

I think the war in 1938 is a fascinating scenario. Czechoslovakia was in a much better position to resist than Poland, but in the end would need lots of help from France and Britain and if there's one thing that 1939 tells us, they wouldn't get it.

I think the practical upshot is that a bloody German win moves the timetable back. And it's an open question as to who would make best use of that time.

#1106 France wasn't looking for England to lead. They simply weren't willing to make any commitments to Czechoslovakia without British support.

That's to the extent that France had an ongoing foreign policy. Chronic government instability made it difficult to formulate policy. Even if it was essentially revolving coalitions with basically the same players it still caused a lot of disruptions.

Plenty of funds exist that follow various rules of social/moral consciousness -

Indeed, I don't know why any good conservative corporate citizen would betray their deeply-held beliefs by investing in anything OTHER than the Free Enterprise Action Fund, the only "shareholder activist mutual fund (Ticker: FEAOX) that seeks long-term capital appreciation while aggressively challenging CEOs who use shareholder assets to advance the liberal political agenda which threatens long-term shareholder value, the free enterprise system and individual liberty," that is also endorsed by FOX News contributor, Cato Institute fellow, lead exposure enthusiast, and owner of Junkscience.com, Steve Milloy.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Are you simply pedantically arguing that HL is being required to provide coverage for contraception rather than contraception directly? If so, true, but that requirement is colloquially known as the "contraceptive mandate."

No, I am saying that Hobby Lobby isn't required to provide coverage for contraception. They can file for an exemption, they fill out a form, and when they submit it they are relieved of the requirement to offer a health care plan that meets the ACA mandate for contraception coverage in order to qualify for the tax break. What then happens is that the federal government will pay for a rider to the plan that adds contraception coverage, at no cost to the employer or employee.

@1231 - seriously that's the law? So really they are ######## about the gummit giving FREE contraception to their employees? Or are they ######## about having to fill out forms (seem appropriate for April 15th)

Governor of Oklahoma moves to ensure it stays among the ten poorest states

Boy states' rightist really mean states rights, because they sure do hate local control. In KS, they just passed a law that prohibits cities from straying from the state's looney-tunes conceal carry laws.

The Southern Baptist Convention for one has been ardently anti without seeing an exodus

Late to reply here, sorry (I've been working and watching baseball:) I'd place Southern Baptists along with Catholics in terms of their official positions on contraception vs. the realities of their membership's behavior. I know many, many Texas Baptists who neither practice nor preach anti-contraceptive doctrines. And as with Catholics, there are quite a few who are happy to listen to the preaching without subscribing in practice.

I'm reminded of Bertrand Russell's distinction between "Protestant and Catholic freethinkers." The former believe in extreme tolerance but have strict personal codes; the latter believe in strict rules for the world and do whatever they like. In this respect Baptists may be honorary "Catholic freethinkers" :)

@1231 - seriously that's the law? So really they are ######## about the gummit giving FREE contraception to their employees? Or are they ######## about having to fill out forms (seem appropriate for April 15th)

I can't believe that's true. If it were, it seems to me their case would have been thrown out on a first motion to dismiss. What possible grounds could HL claim to want to deny its employees a free benefit paid for by a 3rd party?

The direct line of travel between this guy and the guys that targeted American citizens in defense of some Nevadan nutbags cattle is short and straight. Not shocking that he's a Teaper and a Paulite...

) I'd place Southern Baptists along with Catholics in terms of their official positions on contraception vs. the realities of their membership's behavior.

I disagree- Southern Baptists may behave differently in private with respect to contraception than their "official" position (like Catholics)- but Southern Baptist VOTE for pro-Life/anti-contraception politicians and Catholic voters do not.

I can't believe that's true. If it were, it seems to me their case would have been thrown out on a first motion to dismiss. What possible grounds could HL claim to want to deny its employees a free benefit paid for by a 3rd party?

The argument, such as it is, that Hobby Lobby is making is that by filling out the form they are setting in motion a chain of events that inexorably leads to its employees getting access to contraception, which makes it morally culpable, and so is in violation of its religious freedom.

re 1226. I'm not sure how England declaring war on Germany and then doing nothing would put them in a better position than they found themselves in a year later. England was even less ready for war when Hitler was saber rattling at Czechoslovakia than they were when he invaded Poland.

A war against the Czechs would not have been easy for Germany but the Czech correctly foresaw that without immediate help from France and Britain their country would get destroyed and France wasn't really going to do anything and Britain was incapable of giving any kind of real help. Invading Sudetenland and having Britain and France declare war would have brought an end to the Third Reich but the war would have been just as bloody and as costly* as the war we actually got.

*It might very well have been bloodier and far more damaging since Stalin was perfectly willing to let the Fascists and the Capitalists destroy each other while he retooled the Soviet Union in anticipation of his invasion of Europe. So a weaker and less developed Germany slugs it out with France and Britain in the West for a much longer period thus keeping Hitler from turning East and going after a "neutral" Soviet Union.

The argument, such as it is, that Hobby Lobby is making is that by filling out the form they are setting in motion a chain of events that inexorably leads to its employees getting access to contraception, which is in violation of its religious freedom.

No, I am saying that Hobby Lobby isn't required to provide coverage for contraception. They can file for an exemption, they fill out a form, and when they submit it they are relieved of the requirement to offer a health care plan that meets the ACA mandate for contraception coverage in order to qualify for the tax break. What then happens is that the federal government will pay for a rider to the plan that adds contraception coverage, at no cost to the employer or employee.

I don't think that's right. For-profit business can't file for an exemption, so that isn't available to Hobby Lobby. Non-church religious organizations can file for an exemption, but that's been challenged too by the Little Sisters of the Poor, who object to even filing a form that would allow their employees to get certain kinds of contraception.

Sorry, the above is not completely correct. It is the Catholic hospital that is making the anti-exemption argument I outlined. Hobby Lobby has another hoop to go through, which is qualifying for the exemption that the ACA makes for religious organizations, which we have been discussing above.

It's not clear whether HL would make the additional argument I mentioned.

#1243 Depends on what France and England were prepared to do. If all they were going to do is watch (as they did during the Polish campaign) then the right thing to do is what they di -- cut the best deal with Hitler.

Thing is that in order to succeed versus the Czechs they could only afford a token defensive force in the west. France and Britain had the ability to relieve the Czechs with pressure in the West, just (probably) not the will.

But the investment decisions are not controlled exclusively by the employees. The employees are able to direct investments according to the menu of available options that the company has worked out with the provider.

Much like I'm able to choose from a few different health care plans, which have already been negotiated by my employer. Funnily enough, the employer negotiated and funded health plan chosen by Hobby Lobby included, until very recently, contraceptive coverage, including Plan B. They're quite morally conscious over there at Hobby Lobby.

Britain had no ability to attack anybody with a land force. They didn't start conscription until 1939 and didn't do a full and complete conscription until after declaring war on Germany in 1939. In 1938 they had very few well trained officers and soldiers with I believe 1 armor division that was formed in 1938. Britain was always going to be a sidekick in whatever land war took place in Europe in the 30's and 40's.

France had absolutely no desire to start a war and was never going to be serious about an actual invasion of Germany. Hitler emptied out the West in his invasion of Poland and all France did was launch a token invasion that the French quickly halted and then recalled despite facing virtually no real opposition to their attack.

I also don't agree with the view that Germany would have to go all out against Czechoslovakia in order to beat them.

Much like I'm able to choose from a few different health care plans, which have already been negotiated by my employer. Funnily enough, the employer negotiated and funded health plan chosen by Hobby Lobby included, until very recently, contraceptive coverage, including Plan B. They're quite morally conscious over there at Hobby Lobby.

They were for it until they were against it? They are five years old and are OK with it until told they HAVE to do it, and then they hold there breath and turn blue?

No, I am saying that Hobby Lobby isn't required to provide coverage for contraception. They can file for an exemption, they fill out a form, and when they submit it they are relieved of the requirement to offer a health care plan that meets the ACA mandate for contraception coverage in order to qualify for the tax break. What then happens is that the federal government will pay for a rider to the plan that adds contraception coverage, at no cost to the employer or employee.

This is wrong. It is the 'accommodation' offered for the government for religious non-profits that aren't churches -- i.e., religiously-affiliated hospitals and universities and other charities. It is not an option for for-profit employers such as Hobby Lobby or Conestoga Wood.

I also don't agree with the view that Germany would have to go all out against Czechoslovakia in order to beat them

The geography precluded blitzkrieg- essentially they were going to have to tackle fortified positions in mountainous terrain- which is a tough slog even with a significant advantage in men and firepower like we had in Italy 1943/45- The Czechs in 1938 would almost certainly have been able to hold out far longer than the Poles in 1939

Perhaps Hobby Lobby's Director of Morality can explain why allowing insurance plans to provide coverage for drugs and procedures that they also invest in is a bridge too far...

Perhaps it is a bridge too far. In Thomas v. Review Board, the petitioner, a Jehovah's Witness, was not willing to work on an assembly line that made tank turrets. He was willing to work in the company's foundry, which made steel; that steel was used for, among other things, the tank turrets. Lower courts found those positions to be inconsistent, and therefore decided that his objection wasn't sincere enough. The Supreme Court noted that it's up to the individual petitioner to draw a line, and not for the government to question it. Or perhaps they just weren't paying attention.

Yes. This isn't about religious freedom. It's about preventing women from having access to birth control.

No, no, it's about racism. They hate it because Obama's black. (As long as you're going to make #### up based on not knowing the law, you might as well go all the way.) Every woman in the United States has unfettered 'access' to birth control, and Hobby Lobby is not opposed to birth control. And nothing in Hobby Lobby's position would prevent a single woman from getting birth control.

This is wrong. It is the 'accommodation' offered for the government for religious non-profits that aren't churches -- i.e., religiously-affiliated hospitals and universities and other charities. It is not an option for for-profit employers such as Hobby Lobby or Conestoga Wood.

I am OK with modifying the law so that the accommodation applies to for-profit employers who apply, but they should have to kick back the cost of the of rider (which should be vastly less than the penalty for non-compliance). Or they can re-incorporate as a religious non-profit.

The geography precluded blitzkrieg- essentially they were going to have to tackle fortified positions in mountainous terrain- which is a tough slog even with a significant advantage in men and firepower like we had in Italy 1943/45- The Czechs in 1938 would almost certainly have been able to hold out far longer than the Poles in 1939

The issue isn't time but what would have been done with that time. France showed that they weren't going to do anything with that time and Britain was incapable of doing anything regardless of how much time you gave them. Thus Czechoslovakia capitulated.

Poland is a good example of what would happen to a country that was relying on the Western Powers for help. They were promised that France would launch an attack on Germany within days of a start of a war and that within a week or so France would launch 40 divisions against Germany. Therefore Poland's main goal was to hold out and wait for the French to "flank" the Germans. The French did launch a quick attack of Germany once the war was declared but they failed to send the 40 divisions and in fact pulled their troops back to the Maginot Line.

It isn't that appeasement didn't work but that the appeasers then didn't follow it up with the necessary plans and actions. Appeasement was always a tactic for buying time. "Peace in our time". The problem is that what they were buying was time before a war not generational peace. Britain should have used the time to build up their military (especially their land forces [armor]) and sent their diplomatic corps into overdrive. Have them build real relationships wit the Soviets instead of insulting them and isolating them and have them work on the Americans much much earlier than they did. They failed to do all of this thus when Hitler gambled on Poland the British were still woefully unprepared for war.

They simply weren't willing to make any commitments to Czechoslovakia without British support.

I agree.

The two statements seem at odds, if not downright contradictory. France wasn't looking for England to take the lead; it just wasn't going to do anything without it? The distinction would seem rather recherche. At every aggressive action by Hitler, Hitler knew that what counted was what Britain would do. France plainly deferred to Britain. It was not going to do anything without Britain making the decision. It was Britain that Hitler negotiated with.

The issue isn't time but what would have been done with that time. France showed that they weren't going to do anything with that time and Britain was incapable of doing anything regardless of how much time you gave them.

Germany invaded Poland on 9/1/39, the Soviets invaded on 9/17/39, it was over on 10/6/39.

France's Saar Offensive took place from 9/7 to 9/16 - France did not actually withdraw from German territory until October 16-17- after Poland had fallen AND German troops were being transferred from Poland to the Saar region- the major part of the planned offensive would have commenced on September 20 had it not been called off.

The question of time is this: France could easily call off its planned offensive on the grounds that it as not going to make a difference- but if Poland was actually holding on (And the Soviets don't attack) the political pressure to do something is going to build- and moreover while France's Generals were a stunningly inept lot- even they would have seen an irresistible opportunity- western Germany was poorly defended - and if Poland was holding on western Germany would continue to be poorly defended

The two statements seem at odds, if not downright contradictory. France wasn't looking for England to take the lead; it just wasn't going to do anything without it? The distinction would seem rather recherche. At every aggressive action by Hitler, Hitler knew that what counted was what Britain would do. France plainly deferred to Britain. It was not going to do anything without Britain making the decision. It was Britain that Hitler negotiated with.

France and Britain needed each other in order for either to do anything. Neither wanted a war, neither could afford a war, and neither wanted to take on Germany or Russia alone.

ermany invaded Poland on 9/1/39, the Soviets invaded on 9/17/39, it was over on 10/6/39.

France's Saar Offensive took place from 9/7 to 9/16 - France did not actually withdraw from German territory until October 16-17- after Poland had fallen AND German troops were being transferred from Poland to the Saar region- the major part of the planned offensive would have commenced on September 20 had it not been called off.

The question of time is this: France could easily call off its planned offensive on the grounds that it as not going to make a difference- but if Poland was actually holding on (And the Soviets don't attack) the political pressure to do something is going to build- and moreover while France's Generals were a stunningly inept lot- even they would have seen an irresistible opportunity- western Germany was poorly defended - and if Poland was holding on western Germany would continue to be poorly defended

The French and British called off the larger offensive and decided to call a halt to the Saar Offensive on the 12th. Well before the Soviets invaded and still a good deal of time left on the clock for the Poles. The French started to pull out of Germany on the 21st and it was a token force that was eventually pushed out of Germany in October. As for the Poles they were doing, not terrible, for what they were facing initially and if it wasn't for the Soviets attacking in the middle of the month the Polish army probably stays intact as a force on the field despite losing vast amounts of territory. Which would cause Germany problems to no end had the French actually gone through with their promised major assault.

The French spent the bulk of the Phoney War devising plans to attack Germany virtually everywhere but in Germany.

Well, your point that was made initially had no evidence to back it up. The bottomline is that neither was the absolute lead and neither was the absolute follower. Both parties looked after their own interests first and were not about sacrifice themselves for the greater good of the whole. In some situations Britain would have France agreed to do what Britain wanted and in some cases Britain would agree to do what France wanted. France was not a client state of Britain.

There is no evidence that shows that had Britain declared war in 1938 without France agreeing to it ahead of time that France would still join them and fight a war against Germany. The reality of the situation is that both sides looked at each other and decided they didn't want to go to war so they instead attempted to appease Hitler.

Evidence? Really, McCoy. Your assertions are not evidence. What are your sources for the contrary. I had the evidence of the primary sources of the tiimes? Was it Chamberlain who got the headlines at Munich or was it his French counterpart? Historians John Keegan, Martin Gilbert, and William Manchester, just off the top of my head, corroborate what I hold. I hardly think any historian doesn't think that Britain was the dominant in that relationship. If your point is that for France to have deferred to England taking the lead would have to mean that it was the lap dog of England, point taken--but it ain't much of one.

France had no desire to go to war. What they actually did when war actually broke out amply proves that. The French would go along with virtually any plan that avoided war. That is not being led. The French did not want a war and the British did not ask for one until it became obvious to all that they all would have to go to war. And again, when the French did declare war they attacked half-heartedly and drew numerous plans of attacks but none of their involved actually attacking Germany in Germany. They talked about Scandinavia and the Balkans and Eastern Europe and so forth but they refused to actually attack Germany directly via Germany.

The French absurdly did not wish to antagonize the Germans despite having already declared war on them and attacked them. Now how is that ample evidence that they wished to have been led by the British?

re 1226. I'm not sure how England declaring war on Germany and then doing nothing would put them in a better position than they found themselves in a year later. England was even less ready for war when Hitler was saber rattling at Czechoslovakia than they were when he invaded Poland.

A war against the Czechs would not have been easy for Germany but the Czech correctly foresaw that without immediate help from France and Britain their country would get destroyed and France wasn't really going to do anything and Britain was incapable of giving any kind of real help. Invading Sudetenland and having Britain and France declare war would have brought an end to the Third Reich but the war would have been just as bloody and as costly* as the war we actually got.

Well, at a bare minimum, you make the Germans destroy all the Czech war materiel and munitions industry, instead of capturing wholesale. Czech tanks played a major role in the Battle of France.

I doubt it would have come to that. If the Germans were going to have to bomb and attack the Czech's ability to wage war and not simply remove their forces then they would have been in trouble.

The Poles fought hard and their industrial complex and resources went largely untouched. So much so that the Soviets tore down the factories and shipped them East while the Germans used the resources they took as well.

The Germans also went ripping through France and left the resources and industries of France largely intact.

The Germans enjoyed a run of incredible luck vis a vis England and France. France did not have to allow themselves to be suckerpunched like it did, and Dunkirk didn't have to happen. Both were the result in great part of hesitancies that come with being prosperous democracies, democracies whose governments were, additionally, in a state of change and transition at the time.

So you're talking about the Klukker who shot up the Jewish Community Center in suburban Kansas City. In the first place, anybody can run in any primary, pretty much. Don't assign him to any major party, and he drew almost no support.

The news this had me flashing back on was a very similar event 8 or 10 years ago in which an Aryan Nations guy (Idaho connection) shot up a JCC in Los Angeles. (OK 15 years ago - I looked it up and it was 1999.) One very odd thing the two incidents have in common: none of the fatalities were actually Jewish. In the Los Angeles case, everyone at the JCC miraculously survived, but the guy killed a USPS letter carrier named Joseph Ileto. (Note: I'd rather speak the name of the victim rather than the name of the perpetrator.) The odds that the shooter had any idea of Mr. Ileto's actual ethnicity are quite slim. (In fact, Filipino.)

France wasn't looking for England to take the lead; it just wasn't going to do anything without it? The distinction would seem rather recherche.

What's tough to understand? They didn't want a leader -- indeed they expected to be the senior partner in any ground war. They wanted an overall partner though. They were utterly unwilling to face Germany without substantial allies. Czechoslovakia alone wasn't enough.

What's tough to understand? They didn't want a leader -- indeed they expected to be the senior partner in any ground war. They wanted an overall partner though. They were utterly unwilling to face Germany without substantial allies. Czechoslovakia alone wasn't enough.

Exactly. But, France, Britain and Czechoslovakia, especially with the Czechs fighting from prepared fortifications in good defensive terrain, probably was enough to stop the Germans.

#1263 Been a while since I read Collapse of the Third Republic. It's a mistake to view France as speaking with a single voice at any given moment. In 1938 alone they went through three prime ministers and God alone knows how many other senior ministers (though with very few new players involved. Generally speaking people just changed ministries).

That said, Daladier was was Prime Minister at the time of Munich (the third PM of 1938 which sort of underscores just how chaotic the French political scene was) and he was by far the most suspicious of Hitler's intentions among the senior French politicians. But like all of them, he placed tremendous emphasis in a coordinated approach with the British. There was never any real question of either nation doiny anything major on the foreign policy front without coordinating it with the other.

Of course what I'd forgotten all along was that in 1938 Stalin was also prepared to support the Czechs and that totally changes the equation militarily. Though there is the awkward matter of Soviet access to Czechoslovakia. Poland for instance would have probably balked at allowing large number of Soviet troops passage.

So you're talking about the Klukker who shot up the Jewish Community Center in suburban Kansas City. In the first place, anybody can run in any primary, pretty much. Don't assign him to any major party, and he drew almost no support.

The guy currently self-identifies as a Tea Partier. Not that all Teapers are violent, white supremacist Nazis, obviously. But it bears mentioning that where, perhaps, in 1984, such a man would think himself a fellow traveler of the Southern Democrats, in 2014 he believes his allies are in the Tea Party. My point was that this guy isn't removed by far from the nutjobs who flocked to Nevada in the hopes of killing Americans in a "new Waco."

The guy currently self-identifies as a Tea Partier. Not that all Teapers are violent, white supremacist Nazis, obviously. But it bears mentioning that where, perhaps, in 1984, such a man would think himself a fellow traveler of the Southern Democrats, in 2014 he believes his allies are in the Tea Party. My point was that this guy isn't removed by far from the nutjobs who flocked to Nevada in the hopes of killing Americans in a "new Waco."

No, it doesn't bear mentioning. Civilized society should be unanimous in its condemnation of wackjobs like this (you don't see any Tea Party types defending him do you?) rather than trying to score cheap political points by tying him to legitimate political rivals.

#1268 I'm certain Snapper's right. I mean look at what happened to Warsaw. I can't see any way the Skoda works does not become a target. Even after a German breakthrough, there would be fighting in the cities. At which point the Germans would resort to bombing and shelling )just as they did at Warsaw)

Civilized society should be unanimous in its condemnation of wackjobs like this (you don't see any Tea Party types defending him do you?) rather than trying to score cheap political points by tying him to legitimate political rivals.

Ted Cruz is as responsible for that guy as Barack Obama is for Al Sharpton. If the fringes count against the center, the fringes count against the center.

Of course what I'd forgotten all along was that in 1938 Stalin was also prepared to support the Czechs and that totally changes the equation militarily. Though there is the awkward matter of Soviet access to Czechoslovakia. Poland for instance would have probably balked at allowing large number of Soviet troops passage.

Yes, Stalin publicly supported the Czechs but nobody paid it any attention. The Czechs weren't willing to stand their ground and take support from the Soviets and the French and British all but ignored the Soviets during the crisis. Germany ignored the Soviets.

Ted Cruz is as responsible for that guy as Barack Obama is for Al Sharpton. If the fringes count against the center, the fringes count against the center.

No, it doesn't bear mentioning. Civilized society should be unanimous in its condemnation of wackjobs like this (you don't see any Tea Party types defending him do you?) rather than trying to score cheap political points by tying him to legitimate political rivals.

I agree with snapper. It's entirely bogus to try to tie a violent anti-Semite to a political party. It is a coarsening of the discourse.

Now, that guy illegally ranching in Nevada, that guy is a different story.

#1268 I'm certain Snapper's right. I mean look at what happened to Warsaw. I can't see any way the Skoda works does not become a target. Even after a German breakthrough, there would be fighting in the cities. At which point the Germans would resort to bombing and shelling )just as they did at Warsaw)

How about we look at what actually happened in countries Germany invaded in 1939 and 1940? Poland was not leveled. France was not leveled. Norway was not leveled. The Lowlands were not leveled.

The Germans faced numerous opponents, many of whom should have been tough foes, and yet the Germans sliced right through them. There is little evidence that Czechs would last more than a month or two and why would the Czechs have themselves experience total war when no other country on the continent was willing to do that?

Hitler by 1944 was willing to wage total war, Stalin was willing, though initially he was willing call it quits but Hitler wanted a total war against the Soviets so that was never going to happen, and quite possibly Churchill was as well. That was about it.

I agree with snapper. It's entirely bogus to try to tie a violent anti-Semite to a political party. It is a coarsening of the discourse.

Now, that guy illegally ranching in Nevada, that guy is a different story.

So a guy running around killing people who happen to be near a Jewish community center is too fringe to be associated to a mainline party, but a guy running around Nevada claiming the federal government "doesn't exist" while his buddies from like-minded militias (who I guarantee you have members who believe identical things to the anti-semite guy) target Americans from snipers nests on the raised highways, aching for a Waco/Ruby Ridge type of shootout are not? Why does the line go there?

So a guy running around killing people who happen to be near a Jewish community center is too fringe to be associated to a mainline party, but a guy running around Nevada claiming the federal government "doesn't exist" while his buddies from like-minded militias (who I guarantee you have members who believe identical things to the anti-semite guy) target Americans from snipers nests on the raised highways, aching for a Waco/Ruby Ridge type of shootout are not? Why does the line go there?

Because one guy is clearly outside even the acceptable fringe of the party and one guy gets defended by party elites.

Also, because the rhetoric of one clearly derives from movement conservatism while neither party suffers violent anti-Semites.

#1285 Any place there was substantial local resistance -- Warsaw for instance -- was in fact severely flattened. Now the allies would hit other places much harder later in the war, and there were targeting issues when it came to Warsaw. (They dumped ~500 tons of HE and 72 tons of incendiaries on Warsaw and that's calculated to break a lot of things even if an awful lot of it was dropped on the wrong place)

Somewhere around 40% of the buildings in Warsaw were damaged and around 10% destroyed.

Due to a communication snafu Rotterdam took a pounding *after* it surrendered.

There is zero chance that the Skoda works would not be leveled. It would be churning out equipment that the Czech forces would be using. And there would be no quick victory

The Germans faced numerous opponents, many of whom should have been tough foes, and yet the Germans sliced right through them. There is little evidence that Czechs would last more than a month or two and why would the Czechs have themselves experience total war when no other country on the continent was willing to do that?

You need to adjust that for 1) the respective Jewish populations, 2)Soviet liquidations in their occupation zones and 3) being located on a bee-line from Moscow to Berlin,

At least 2 million of those Polish dead have to be Jews. If 10+% of Czechoslovakia's population was Jewish, they wouldn't have fared any better than Poland's Jews did.

The Soviets also massacred and sent to the Gulag to die, tens and hundreds of thousands of Poles. the most famous incident being the 20,000+ killed in the Katyn forest.

Finally, many of those deaths occurred during the "liberation" of Poland by the Red Army, including the complete leveling of Warsaw during the 1944 Uprising, while the Soviets sat by, and let the Germans liquidate the Polish Nationalist forces.

True, but as weird and demagogic as Al Sharpton has been, he's not remotely the left-wing counterpart to a Klansman. He's more like a birther whose conspiracy theories center on unsubstantiated rape accusations rather than on a birth certificate, but in terms of actual policy positions he's probably much closer to the center of the country than most of the leading 2016 GOP contenders.

And yet the Czechs folded without firing a shot and again the Germans went ripping through all of these other countries starting less than a year later. Also don't understimate the ability of determined organization to rebuild.

The Soviets ripped out factories from Poland and had them up and running in their territory quickly. They also moved their entire industrial base east after the invasion. The Germans were able to produce goods at high volume and bring factories back on line very quickly despite heavy bombings on a daily occurence.

The allies routinely tried to destroy the factories of Pilsen and they routinely failed. I believe the most succesful attack on the Skoda Works was the last bombing run of the 8th Air Force when almost 300 bombers attacked Pilsen and 200 of them specifically attacked the Skoda Works. By 89th AF estimates they destroyed 70% of the compound. This was about 2 weeks before V-E day so I have no idea how quickly the damage could have been repaired.

HLs position is that providing HCPs that cover some types of Birth control is against their religious principles. But not providing/paying for something they would legally have to, they are "preventing" or at least restricting access. If a Law says I have to give you lunch money, and you don't comply -- Yes, I can still pay for my own lunch - but you are restricting that by lowering my ability to buy lunch.

I agree that this is a little tenuous - BUT

BY YOUR OWN arguments - the government is FORCING them (in a analogous manner!) to comply with the law because the penalty for non-compliance is so high.

You have repeated argued that you are "forced" to pay taxes when given the option of leaving the country or going to jail. If that's force then so is HL refusing to provide (as directed) parts of a health insurance package.

Not the first time you have trapped yourself by this logic - because you have also argued (IIRC) that an employee is free to leave a job (and basically starve) if they don't like the conditions. That is force as well.

There are plenty of R candidates today who associate with white supremacists (Ron Paul being an obvious example), whether technically Klan or not. There used to be lots of Dems who did. Associating with white supremacy is a time-honored tradition for some.

Not the first time you have trapped yourself by this logic - because you have also argued (IIRC) that an employee is free to leave a job (and basically starve) if they don't like the conditions. That is force as well.

But in David's world, the only force that's spongeworthy is force at government gunpoint. Any other force merely involves a willing puncher and a willing punchee, or something like that.